Appeal 2007-1106
Application 10/965,055
OBVIOUSNESS
1 In analyzing obviousness, the scope and content of the prior art must
2 be determined, the differences between the prior art and the claims
3 ascertained, and the ordinary level of skill in the art resolved. Objective
4 evidence of the circumstances surrounding the origin of the claimed subject
5 matter (so-called secondary considerations) may also be relevant. Such
6 secondary considerations guard against the employment of impermissible
7 hindsight.11
8 Claim 1 defines the invention broadly as follows:
9 1. A battery for a dockable electronic device, the battery
10 comprising:
11 a housing having a recess;
12 at least one battery cell disposed in the housing;
13 wherein the recess of the housing is operable to receive a
14 docking station platform when the dockable electronic device is
15 docked at the docking station while the housing is coupled to a
16 bottom surface of the dockable electronic device.
17 Claim 18 defines the invention more narrowly in terms of three
18 members as follows:
19 18. A housing for a battery for a dockable electronic device,
20 the housing comprising:
21 a transverse member having opposite ends;
11 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 36, 148 USPQ 459, 474 (1966),
cited with approval in KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d
1385 (2007). The record on appeal does not contain objective evidence of
secondary considerations.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013